DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Illinois State University ISU ReD: Research and eData Theses and Dissertations 4-16-2019 Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site Silas Levi Chapman Illinois State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Chapman, Silas Levi, "Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site" (2019). Theses and Dissertations. 1118. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1118 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BLADES AT THE MOUND HOUSE SITE SILAS LEVI CHAPMAN 89 Pages Understanding Middle Woodland period sites has been of considerable interest for North American archaeologists since early on in the discipline. Various Middle Woodland period (50 BCE-400CE) cultures participated in shared ideas and behaviors, such as constructing mounds and earthworks and importing exotic materials to make objects for ceremony and for interring with the dead. These shared behaviors and ideas are termed by archaeologists as “Hopewell”. The Mound House site is a floodplain mound group thought to have served as a “ritual aggregation center”, a place for the dispersed Middle Woodland communities to congregate at certain times of year to reinforce their shared identity. Mound House is located in the Lower Illinois River valley within the floodplain of the Illinois River, where there is a concentration of Middle Woodland sites and activity. Use-wear analysis is a tool that archaeologists can use to identify the materials stone tools were used to cut, scrape, drill, etc. The application of this technique to blades, a tool style associated with Hopewell, at Mound House can reveal what people were doing at Mound House. This thesis applies this technique to the Mound House site to reveal evidence for communal activities such as feasting, while craft production and daily activities play a lesser role at the site. This supports preexisting ideas about Mound House as a center for Middle Woodland people to gather to form a symbolic community. KEYWORDS: Archaeology, North American Archaeology, Middle Woodland, Hopewell, Use- Wear Analysis UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BLADES AT THE MOUND HOUSE SITE SILAS LEVI CHAPMAN A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Sociology and Anthropology ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY 2019 Copyright 2019 Silas Levi Chapman UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BLADES AT THE MOUND HOUSE SITE SILAS LEVI CHAPMAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Gregory L. Miller, Chair Jason L. King Abigail C. Stone ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. G. Logan Miller for his assistance in instructing me on use- wear analysis and identifying wear, as well as his guidance as my thesis advisor and serving as my thesis committee chair. I would like to thank the Center for American Archaeology for loaning me the materials that were the basis for this thesis, and Dr. Jason King who acted as my contact with the CAA. I would also like to thank Dr. Jason King and Dr. Abigail Stone for serving on my thesis committee and providing feedback and guidance. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who supported me through the time of writing this thesis. S.L.C. i CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i TABLES iii FIGURES iv INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I: THE MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD AND HOPEWELL 5 CHAPTER II: THE MOUND HOUSE SITE, 11-GE-7 22 CHAPTER III: PREVIOUS ANALYSES OF HOPEWELL BLADES 27 CHAPTER IV: A BRIEF HISTORY OF USE-WEAR ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY 37 CHAPTER V: RESULTS 44 CHAPTER VI: DISCUSIION 60 CONCLUSION 78 REFERENCES CITED 80 ii TABLES Table Page 1. Used Mound House Blades by Context 46 2. Total Site Use Wear by Material Worked 46 3. Blades with Motions of Use Identified 47 4. Mound Area Use Wear 50 5. Habitation Area Use Wear 50 6. Degree of Completeness for Blades, Unused vs Used 59 iii FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Midwest map showing the location of Mound House and other Midde Woodland sites discussed in this study 5 2. Map of the Mound House Site with Units and Labels of Mounds and Areas 26 3. A Selection of Blades and Blade Fragments from Mound House 43 4. Photos of use-wear on blades 45 5. Blades with retouch or modification 49 6. Bone and Antler Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 51 7. Dry Hide Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 52 8. Fresh Hide Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 53 9. Dry Hide and Fresh Hide Combined Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 54 10. Meat Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 55 11. Soft Plant Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 56 12. Stone Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 57 13. Wood Use-Wear Distribution at Mound House 58 14. A comparison of use-wear distributions in the different Mound House contexts 62 15. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Murphy site use-wear assemblages 66 16. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Smith site use-wear assemblages 67 17. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Paint Creek Lake Site #5 use-wear assemblages 69 18. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage the North Fort Gateways 71 iv 19. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage in Lots 17 and 18 72 20. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage in the Twin Mounds area 72 21. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage in the Interior Household Cluster 73 22. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage in the Moorehead Circle 73 23. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage in Waterline Trench Six 74 24. A comparison of the Mound House site and the Ft. Ancient site assemblage in the Middle Fort area 74 v INTRODUCTION This thesis is a presentation of a microwear analysis of lithic blades from the Mound House site. This mound group is located in the floodplain of the Lower Illinois River Valley and served as gathering space for Middle Woodland communities in the region. We as archaeologists know a lot about the mound construction sequence at the site and that ritual activity took place here. While ceremonies and community formation seem to have been important at Mound House, little is known about additional activities, ceremonial or otherwise, that took place there, other than mound construction. Mound House, like other Middle Woodland floodplain mound groups in this region of Illinois, has been conceptualized as a regional ceremonial centers, where a symbolic community gathered for ceremonial and cooperative activities (King, Buikstra, and Charles 2011; Ruby et al. 2005). The Mound House site in particular has been noted for the unique ritual complexity at the site, evidenced by a pre-mound ritual screen underneath mound 1. Blade use during the Middle Woodland period (50 BCE-400 CE) is strongly associated with the rise and spread of Hopewell. Hopewell refers to collections of material culture made from exotic materials that were sourced and exchanged over the North American Midcontinent in connection with specific styles of building mounds and other earthworks. Most Hopewell artifacts were not utilitarian objects and were interred with the dead in burial mounds as grave goods. Blades start appearing with early Hopewell sites and spread where other Hopewell artifacts and ideas had been. When Hopewell disappeared at the end of the Middle Woodland period, so did the use of blades (Fortier 2000; Miller 2018a), suggesting that the invention and use of blades during the Middle Woodland period was a Hopewell practice. Another reason Hopewell blades have captured the attention of archaeologists is that this technology existed alongside flake and bifacial stone tool technology, which would seemingly make it a redundant 1 tool form. This has led to speculation of blades being a technological adaptation, perhaps as a tool to fit a specialized niche, such as in the production of Hopewell artifacts (Grubb 1981; Reid 1976). Others have speculated that Hopewell blades were a tool type that largely function to symbolize Hopewell identity (Morrow 1987). The application of use-wear to Hopewell blades allows archaeologists to truly identify their function. Microwear analysis allows for each individual tool to be identified, and in turn, whole assemblages. Since the early 1990’s there have been multiple applications of microwear analysis to Hopewell blades (Kay and Mainfort 2014; Lemons and Church 1998; Miller 2015; 2018; Odell 1994; Yerkes 1994). Considering how long and intensely North American archaeology has been interested in Hopewell and the Middle Woodland, it is surprising that there are not more functional analyses of blades at Illinois sites. Most of these studies have been with Ohio Middle Woodland sites (Lemons and Church 1998; Miller 2015; 2018; Yerkes 1994), one study has examined those from Illinois sites (Odell 1994), and others on Hopewell blades in the Southeast (Kay and Mainfort 2014; Kimball 1992). Odell (1994) used low-power microscopy in his study, which can tell the observer less about the material the tool contact than high-power microscopy techniques. This makes this thesis the only application of high-power microscopy techniques to Illinois Hopewell Blades. Previous studies of Hopewell blade use-wear have shown that blades were not specialized tools but were used to perform a wide variety of tasks including butchering, hide processing, woodworking, working bone and antler, carving stone and shell, and much more.
Recommended publications
  • SEAC Bulletin 58.Pdf

    SEAC Bulletin 58.Pdf

    SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 72ND ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18-21, 2015 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE BULLETIN 58 SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE BULLETIN 58 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 72ND ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18-21, 2015 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON DOWNTOWN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE Organized by: Kevin E. Smith, Aaron Deter-Wolf, Phillip Hodge, Shannon Hodge, Sarah Levithol, Michael C. Moore, and Tanya M. Peres Hosted by: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Middle Tennessee State University Division of Archaeology, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Office of Social and Cultural Resources, Tennessee Department of Transportation iii Cover: Sellars Mississippian Ancestral Pair. Left: McClung Museum of Natural History and Culture; Right: John C. Waggoner, Jr. Photographs by David H. Dye Printing of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 58 – 2015 Funded by Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Authorization No. 327420, 750 copies. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $4.08 per copy. October 2015. Pursuant to the State of Tennessee’s Policy of non-discrimination, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or military service in its policies, or in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in its programs, services or activities. Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action inquiries or complaints should be directed to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, EEO/AA Coordinator, Office of General Counsel, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd floor, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, Nashville, TN 37243, 1-888-867-7455. ADA inquiries or complaints should be directed to the ADA Coordinator, Human Resources Division, 312 Rosa L.
  • Marsland Class III Cultural Resource Investigation (April 28, 2011)

    Marsland Class III Cultural Resource Investigation (April 28, 2011)

    NRC-054B Submitted: 5/8/2015 I AR CAD IS Marsland Expansion Cultural Inventory I I I I I I I I Figure4. Project overview in Section 35 T30N R51W, facing south. Photograph taken by N. Graves, on 12/02/2010. I I I I I I I I Figure 5. Project overview in Section 2 T29N R51W, facing northeast. Photograph taken by A. Howder on 12/03/2010. I 4 I -1- I ARCADJS Marsland Expansion Cultural Inventory I I I I I I I I I Figure 6. Project overview in Section 1 T29N R51W, facing southeast. Photograph taken by A. Howder on 12/04/2010. I I I I I I I I F. Topographic Map 5 I -2- I AR CAD IS Marsland Expansion Cultural Inventory I V. Environmental Setting I A. Present Environment 1. General Topographic Features I The MEAUP is located in the northern Nebraska Panhandle roughly 10 to 12 miles south of Crawford, Nebraska and five miles northeast of Marsland, Nebraska. This portion of the Nebraska Panhandle is dominated topographically by the Pine Ridge escarpment, a rugged, stony region of forested buttes and I deep canyons that divides the High Plains to the south from the Missouri Plateau to the north. The project area straddles the southernmost boundary of the Pine Ridge escarpment and another distinct topographic region to the south, the Dawes Table lands. Taken together, these regions form a unique local mosaic of I topography, geology, and habitat within the project area. I 2. Project Area a. Topography I The Pine Ridge escarpment covers more than one thousand square miles across far eastern Wyoming, northern Nebraska and extreme southern South Dakota (Nebraska State Historical Society 2000).
  • 2004 Midwest Archaeological Conference Program

    2004 Midwest Archaeological Conference Program

    Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 47 2004 Program and Abstracts of the Fiftieth Midwest Archaeological Conference and the Sixty-First Southeastern Archaeological Conference October 20 – 23, 2004 St. Louis Marriott Pavilion Downtown St. Louis, Missouri Edited by Timothy E. Baumann, Lucretia S. Kelly, and John E. Kelly Hosted by Department of Anthropology, Washington University Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-St. Louis Timothy E. Baumann, Program Chair John E. Kelly and Timothy E. Baumann, Co-Organizers ISSN-0584-410X Floor Plan of the Marriott Hotel First Floor Second Floor ii Preface WELCOME TO ST. LOUIS! This joint conference of the Midwest Archaeological Conference and the Southeastern Archaeological Conference marks the second time that these two prestigious organizations have joined together. The first was ten years ago in Lexington, Kentucky and from all accounts a tremendous success. Having the two groups meet in St. Louis is a first for both groups in the 50 years that the Midwest Conference has been in existence and the 61 years that the Southeastern Archaeological Conference has met since its inaugural meeting in 1938. St. Louis hosted the first Midwestern Conference on Archaeology sponsored by the National Research Council’s Committee on State Archaeological Survey 75 years ago. Parts of the conference were broadcast across the airwaves of KMOX radio, thus reaching a larger audience. Since then St. Louis has been host to two Society for American Archaeology conferences in 1976 and 1993 as well as the Society for Historical Archaeology’s conference in 2004. When we proposed this joint conference three years ago we felt it would serve to again bring people together throughout most of the mid-continent.
  • Motion for Leave to Supplement Replies to USEC and the NRC Staff by Geoffrey Sea

    Motion for Leave to Supplement Replies to USEC and the NRC Staff by Geoffrey Sea

    I lOLH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC August 17, 2005 (1:01pm) ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY Before the Administrative Law Judges: RULEMAKINGS AND Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Paul B. Abramson Richard E. Wardwell ) Filed August 17, 2005 In the Matter of ) ) USEC Inc. ) Docket No. 70-7004 (American Centrifuge Plant) ) -) Motion for Leave to Supplement Replies to USEC and the NRC Staff by Geoffrey Sea Petitioner Geoffrey Sea asks leave to supplement his replies to the Answers of USEC and NRC Staff, which were filed on March 23, 2005, and March 25, 2005, respectively. Original replies to the Answers were filed by the Petitioner on March 30, 2005, and April 1, 2005, respectively. The reason for supplementation is new information that is detailed in Petitioners Amended Contentions, being filed concurrently. This new information includes a declaration by three cultural resource experts who completed a visit to the GCEP Water Field site on August 5, 2005. The experts identified a man- made earthwork on the site, crossed by well-heads, just as Petitioner has claimed in prior filings. 7eIPLALTC-= <3 - 31.E The new information also includes two parts in a series of articles by Spencer Jakab about USEC's dismal economic prospects, the second published only yesterday, August 15, 2005. It also includes new statements by Bill Murphie, field office manager for DOE with jurisdiction over Piketon, about USEC's unwillingness to reimburse the government for improper expenses identified in a report by the DOE Office of Inspector General, and about the possibility that DOE may seek to recover these costs.
  • State Parks and Early Woodland Cultures

    State Parks and Early Woodland Cultures

    State Parks and Early Woodland Cultures Key Objectives State Parks Featured Students will understand some basic information related to the ■ Mounds State Park www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/2977.htm Adena, Hopewell and early Woodland Indians, and their connec- ■ Falls of the Ohio State Park www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/2984.htm tions to Mounds and Falls of the Ohio state parks. The students will gain insight into the connection between the Adena culture and the Hopewell tradition, and learn how archaeologists have studied artifacts and mounds to understand these cultures. Activity: Standards: Benchmarks: Assessment Tasks: Key Concepts: Mounds Students will research what was import- Artifacts Identify and compare the major early cultures ant to the Adena Indians. The students Tribes Researching SS.4.1.1 that existed in the region that became Indiana will then compile a list of items found in Adena the Past before contact with Europeans. the Adena mounds and compare them to Hopewell items that we use today. Mississippians Identify and describe historic Native American Use computers in a cooperative group groups that lived in Indiana before the time of to create timelines of major events from SS.4.1.2 early European exploration, including ways that the era of the Adena to the rise of the the groups adapted to and interacted with the Hopewell Indians. physical environment. Use computers in a cooperative group Create and interpret timelines that show rela- to create timelines of major events from SS.4.1.15 tionships among people, events and movements the era of the Adena to the rise of the in the history of Indiana.
  • Indiana Archaeology

    Indiana Archaeology

    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 5 Number 2 2010/2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson Cathy L. Draeger-Williams Cathy A. Carson Wade T. Tharp Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy A. Carson, Records Check Coordinator Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. Mission Statement: The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology promotes the conservation of Indiana’s cultural resources through public education efforts, financial incentives including several grant and tax credit programs, and the administration of state and federally mandated legislation. 2 For further information contact: Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 402 W. Washington Street, Room W274 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2739 Phone: 317/232-1646 Email: [email protected] www.IN.gov/dnr/historic 2010/2011 3 Indiana Archaeology Volume 5 Number 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors of articles were responsible for ensuring that proper permission for the use of any images in their articles was obtained.
  • Archaeologists Solve a 40-Year-Old Mystery? 2 Lay of the Land

    Archaeologists Solve a 40-Year-Old Mystery? 2 Lay of the Land

    INTERPRETING MISSISSIPPIAN ART • CONFRONTING A CONUNDRUM • JEFFERSON’S RETREAT american archaeologyFALL 2005 a quarterly publication of The Archaeological Conservancy Vol. 9 No. 3 MesaMesa VVerde’serde’s ANCIENTANCIENT WAWATERWORKSTERWORKS $3.95 Archaeological Tours led by noted scholars Invites You to Journey Back in Time Jordan (14 days) Libya (20 days) Retrace the route of Nabataean traders Tour fabulous classical cities including Leptis with Dr.Joseph A.Greene,Harvard Magna,Sabratha and Cyrene,as well as the Semitic Museum.We’ll explore pre-Islamic World Heritage caravan city Gadames,with ruins and desert castles,and spend a Sri Lanka (18 days) our scholars.The tour ends with a four-day week in and around Petra visiting its Explore one of the first Buddhist adventure viewing prehistoric art amidst tombs and sanctuaries carved out of kingdoms with Prof.Sudharshan the dunes of the Libyan desert. rose-red sandstone. Seneviratne,U.of Peradeniya. Discover magnificent temples and Ancient Capitals palaces,huge stupas and colorful of China (17 days) rituals as we share the roads Study China’s fabled past with Prof. with elephants and walk in Robert Thorp,Washington U., the footsteps of kings. as we journey from Beijing’s Imperial Palace Ethiopia and Eritrea (19 days) and Suzhou’s exquisite Delve into the intriguing history of gardens to Shanghai.We’ll Africa’s oldest empires with Dr. visit ancient shrines,world-class Mattanyah Zohar,Hebrew U.Visit ancient museums,Xian’s terra-cotta Axumite cities,Lalibela’s famous rock-cut warriors and the spectacular churches,Gondar’s medieval castles,and Longman Buddhist grottoes.
  • 1 Reworked Lithics in the Great Dismal Swamp Erin Livengood

    1 Reworked Lithics in the Great Dismal Swamp Erin Livengood

    Reworked Lithics in the Great Dismal Swamp Erin Livengood Honors Capstone Advisor: Dr. Dan Sayers Fall 2011 1 Introduction Archaeologists have long studied lithic technologies across the discipline and across the world. Created and used by all cultures, stone tools were made in many traditions using many varied techniques. Analyses of lithic tools can provide insights for archaeologists and can aid in interpretations of archaeological sites. In archaeological excavations, of both historical and prehistoric sites, lithics are commonly found artifacts. Due to the many toolmaking traditions utilized in lithic manufacture, oftentimes age of the lithic, geographic location of the lithic's creation, culture group that developed and utilized the tool and how it was used can be determined from the artifact. An analysis of material type can also be illuminative in lithic study; all of these aspects of study can lend ideas about past culture groups (Andrefsky 2009). The lithics included in the artifact assemblage from the Great Dismal Swamp include several different prehistoric technologies. Within this portion of the artifact assemblage, flakes (quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, and several kinds of unidentified lithic materials), projectile points, pebbles and other types of lithic debitage were discovered. This paper will analyze the reworked lithics included in this collection. These stone tools, namely the projectile points, discovered through archaeological excavations, shed light on the materiality of maroonage, particularly within the historic, social and cultural landscape of the Great Dismal Swamp. 2 Lithic Technologies Before the Time of Contact Many variations of lithic technologies existed in the United States before the time of contact. These stone tools are separated into distinct groupings based on characteristics of the tool.
  • 2013 ESAF ESAF Business Office, P.O

    2013 ESAF ESAF Business Office, P.O

    BULLETIN of the EASTERN STATES ARCHEOLOGICAL FEDERATION NUMBER 72 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL ESAF MEETING 79th Annual Meeting October 25-28, 2012 Perrysburg, OH Editor Roger Moeller TABLE OF CONTENTS ESAF Officers............................................................................ 1 Minutes of the Annual ESAF Meeting...................................... 2 Minutes of the ESAF General Business Meeting ..................... 7 Webmaster's Report................................................................... 10 Editor's Report........................................................................... 11 Brennan Award Report............................................................... 12 Treasurer’s Report..................................................................... 13 State Society Reports................................................................. 14 Abstracts.................................................................................... 19 ESAF Member State Society Directories ................................. 33 ESAF OFFICERS 2012/2014 President Amanda Valko [email protected] President-Elect Kurt Carr [email protected] Past President Dean Knight [email protected] Corresponding Secretary Martha Potter Otto [email protected] Recording Secretary Faye L. Stocum [email protected] Treasurer Timothy J. Abel [email protected] Business Manager Roger Moeller [email protected] Archaeology of Eastern North America
  • LUKAS, ARI D., MA Geophysical Investigation at 31MA684

    LUKAS, ARI D., MA Geophysical Investigation at 31MA684

    LUKAS, ARI D., M.A. Geophysical Investigation at 31MA684 Floodplain and 31MA774 Hilltop, Macon County, North Carolina. (2017) Directed by Dr. Roy Stine. 106pp. On October 8th and 9th and December 11th, 2014 a geophysical survey was conducted on two areas adjacent to McCoy Bridge in Macon County, North Carolina. The purpose of the survey was to identify a potential Cherokee Indian habitation site that may have existed in this location. This project was unique in that the geophysical survey maps were created prior to mechanical stripping and compared to feature locations created by archaeologists after the topsoil had been removed. Researchers were then able to accurately determine the ability of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and magnetic gradiometer to detect subsurface features within the cultural landscape that once existed at sites 31MA684, floodplain, and 31MA774, hilltop. The geophysical survey used a 400 megahertz (MHz) GPR antenna and a Bartington fluxgate gradiometer; all data were collected at 50 cm transects. The geophysical survey successfully identified approximately 50 percent of the larger features. However, of the 402 features found by archaeologists, most (288) were small post holes. Coupled with the relative dielectric permittivity (RDP) of the site, identification of these features proved extremely difficult with the GPR. Additionally, the field in which the survey was conducted had years of documented plowing that created deep furrows, resulting in multiple GPR coupling errors. The negligible difference between the feature matrix and surrounding soil combined with the lack of burning also contributed to the inability of either the GPR or gradiometer to detect features. Possible solutions for a higher recovery rate would be to decrease the transect spacing and using a higher frequency antenna in conjunction with the 400 MHz antenna.
  • Bismarck, ND 58501; 701-255-6000 Or

    Bismarck, ND 58501; 701-255-6000 Or

    75th Annual Plains Anthropological Conference Bismarck, North Dakota October 4-7, 2017 Conference Host: State Historical Society of North Dakota (http://history.nd.gov) Conference Committee State Historical Society of North Dakota: • Amy C. Bleier • Wendi Field Murray • Timothy A. Reed • Fern E. Swenson Staff – State Historical Society of North Dakota: • Claudia Berg • Guinn Hinman • Lorna Meidinger • Brooke Morgan • Amy Munson • Paul Picha • Susan Quinnell • Toni Reinbold • Meagan Schoenfelder • Lisa Steckler • Richard Fisk and Museum Store Thank you Chris Johnston, Treasurer of the Plains Anthropological Society, for your invaluable support and assistance. Conference Logo: The logo of the 75th Annual Plains Anthropological Conference is drawn from a decorated pottery vessel in the On-A-Slant Village archaeological collection. The collection is curated at the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck. 1 The State Historical Society of North Dakota thanks our conference partners: 2 CONFERENCE VENDORS & EXHIBITS • Anthropology Department, University of Wyoming • Arikara Community Action Group • Beta Analytic, Inc. • Center for Applied Isotope Studies – University of Georgia • John Bluemle, Geologist & Author • KLJ • Archaeophysics LLC • National Park Service • Nebraska Association of Professional Archeologists • Nebraska State Historical Society • North Dakota Archaeological Association • Plains Anthropologist, Journal of the Plains Anthropological Society • St. Cloud State University • SWCA Environmental Consultants • THG Geophysics • Wichita State University 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GENERAL INFORMATION Conference Headquarters: All conference events, except for the guided tours on Wednesday and Saturday and the reception on Thursday evening, will be held at the Radisson Hotel Bismarck (605 East Broadway Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501; 701-255-6000 or https://www.radisson.com/bismarck-hotel-nd-58501/ndbisdt).
  • 2013 Program + Abstracts

    2013 Program + Abstracts

    SUMMARY SCHEDULE MORNING AFTERNOON EVENING Fort Ancient Roundtable Opening Session OHS Reception 8–12 (Marion Rm) Ohio Earthworks, 1–4 Exhibit: Following (Delaware Rm) in Ancient Exhibits Footsteps , 5–7 THURS 12–5 (Morrow Rm) (shuttles begin at 4 at North Entrance) Exhibits Exhibits Student/Professional 8–12 (Morrow Rm) 12–5 (Morrow Rm) Mixer Symposia and Papers Symposia and Papers 5–9 (Barley’s Earthen Enclosures, 8:15– Woodland-Mississippi Underground) 11:45 (Fairfield Rm) Valley, 1:30–3:30 Late Prehist. Oneota, 8:30– (Fairfield Rm) 10:30 (Knox Rm) Late Prehist. -Ohio Valley Historic, 8–11 am (Marion & Michigan, 1:30–5 Rm) (Knox Rm) Late Prehistoric, 10:45–12 Woodland Mounds & (Knox Rm) Earthworks, 1:30–4 Posters (Marion Rm) FRIDAY Midwestern Archaeology, 9– Late Woodland – Ohio 12 (Fayette Rm) Valley, Michigan & MAC Executive Board Meeting Ontario, 3:45-5:00 12–1:30 (Nationwide B Rm) (Fairfield Rm) Posters Midwestern Archaeology, 1:30–4:30 (Fayette Rm) Student Workshop Getting the Job, 4:15–5:30 (Marion Rm) Exhibits Exhibits Reception and Cash 8–12 (Morrow Rm) 12–5 (Morrow Rm) Bar Symposia and Papers Symposia and Papers 5:30–7 (Franklin Ohio Archaeology, 8–11:15 Woodland -Ohio Valley Rm) (Fairfield Rm) and Michigan, 1:30–4 Banquet and Speaker Paleoindian & Archaic, (Fairfield Rm) 7–9 (Franklin Rm) 8:15–10:00 (Knox Rm) RIHA Project, 1:30–3:30 CRM, 9–12 (Marion Rm) (Knox Rm) Aztalan Structure, 10:15– Late Prehistoric -Upper SATURDAY 11:45 (Knox Rm) Mississippi Valley, 1:30– Posters 3:30 (Marion Rm) Angel Mounds, 9–12 Posters (Fayette Rm) Fort Ancient (Guard Site), OAC Business Meeting 1:30–4:30 (Fayette Rm) 11:15–12 (Fairfield Rm) MAC Business Meeting 4:15–5:15 (Fairfield Rm) Hopewell Earthworks Bus Tour 8 am–4 pm (meet at North Entrance of the hotel) SUN ~ 2 ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary Schedule ......................................................................................